IfE^iBByyffrgpjj^iBHjagiag

                                                                                                        	
                                                                                      ____  .    _              .,

              --'••••; ~"'-*r*KZ>*fS!S&&r:'f-
               Fund


':tjl

                          >:*11



"''.we-ii-.flSti
.^fc^V
                                  :(:f^::f^t;/\;;:^ff:^

                                  '"'"-': • '"':'•'-•';.;•.. •'"'- ;.' -;: '.'.•-••- V-1.-. v /'•-'.••••• r '-^^LL^:-^rt.-v>^^^ ^Ill^illgli^i^l^*^
















                             fl?;.W^:iS^^^^^S|?pMSI& -s
                                                                                                      US!
                                                                     ._.
                                            .»Om«.,.I-, ;,-^ .^:-,,,,._,:._.-V,.,«:-..«_:: J

-------
                    State Revolving  Fund  Program         	

                                                                                              >

                    • flG Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program is a modern and efficient method of financ-
                    ing environmental infrastructure projects  (e.g., wastewater treatment,  agricultural and urban runoff,
                    stormwater, and many others). The SRF Program:                               \

                         H   Buys up to 4 times more environmental protection for the federal dollar than traditional
                              one-time grants, over a twfnty-year period

                         •   Requires only an initial investment to create a fund to finance environmental infrastructure
                              for the foreseeable future

                         H   Provides substantial savings to local communities and stimulates their economies. Every bil-
                              lion dollars invested in the SRF program, supports between 16,000 and 22,000 jobs in the
                              construction and related industries.                                 '

                         M   Pays for Clean Water Act mandates

                         •   Offers substantial state and local flexibility

                         •I   Needs only limited federal administration and oversight

                         •   Is a wise investment for the environment
                   The Clean Water State Revolving Fund continues to be a sound investment for the future:
                                                                                             i

                         H    Continued investment by the federal government and the states over the next few years will
                              allow the SRF program to provide in excess of $2.0 billion in loans annually for a long time
                              into the future

                         •    The SRF program can help us address nearly all the remaining threats to our water
                              resources. Unlike previous programs, the SRF can address a wide variety of environmental
                              problems, including agricultural and urban runoff, stormwater, combined sewer overflows,
                              estuary management projects, as well as traditional wastewater         :

                         •    Investments in environmental infrastructure will continue to stimulate local economies
Covtr Photographs (loll); Tommy Dodson
                Unicom Stock Photo
           (right): Ttioo Stngells
                                                                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

-------
  Message  from  the Administrator

  It is with great pride that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes this "Report of Progress" for the Clean
 Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan program. The SRF is a model of the kind of program that will be needed for
 our new generation of environmental protection. It stands as a highly successful example of a s tate-managed program,
 designed to meet community-based  environmental needs and offers a very flexible way of protecting our water
 resources.
 The SRF program has been very successful and, because of its many advantages, will continue to be an intelligent
 investment in the future. Let me highlight some of the program's many advantages:

 m First, because of the reaving nature of the SRF program, an initial investment by the |federal and state gov-
    ernments can result in till/construction of up to four times as many pollution control projects over a twenty-
    year period as could be constructed with traditional federal grants.  Simply stated, that's four times the "bang-
    for-the-buck."          f^'-"'"  ---' '  '""' ""  :' •''- •:'-'•.-'-:'."'"  '" "  ''. '.'•''".  - '::':' '  -^V."'..'.( ' "• V  •;'..";.  "
 3 Second, the SRF progfeh'can provide loans at rates far below those available
    through other sources, riffllting in substantial savings to communities over the life
    of the loan.            jp-
 8 Third, investments in Sh'vironmental infrastructure create jobs and stimulate local
    economic development.''
 • Fourth, the SRF program funds mandates contained in the Clean Water Act.  The pro-
    gram is capitalized 83 percent by the federal government and 17 percent by the states.
 H Fifth, because of the program's vast flexibility, loans may be targeted to the particular
    environmental needs of each state, including traditional wastewater, contaminated runoff
    from urban and agricultural areas, estuary management projects, and many others. It may
    also offer even lower or no-interest loans to small and disadvantage^ communities.
 B Finally, because the SRF program offers states a high degree of flexibility and con-
    trol, the program operates very efficiently at the federal level. Currently EPA has
    just seventy-five people nationwide administering this program with over $16 billion
    in assets. The SRF is an  efficient, streamlined program and should serve as a model
    for our efforts to reinvent government.                                           t    '
                                                           .
EPA continues to work in partnership  with the states to improve the SRF program. For example, this year we are
beginning the process of integrating the  SRF program with the ecosystem or watershed management concept.
Watershed management means targeting resources to the highest priority problems in the watersheds most in need
of protection or restoration.  In 1995, the  states and EPA will be searching for better ways to, get SRF funds to our
most precious water resources.                            '                           ,

To my mind, the SRF program is one of the most sensible investments we can continue to make. We should ensure
that this program reaches its full potential by continuing the capitalization of the program as suggested  in propos-
als for the Clean  Water Act.
                                              Carol M. Browner

-------
A  New  Era  in  Clean  Water  Funding
With  the passage Jf the Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 19&7, the U.S. Congress
ushered in a new era if clean water, funding. The new CWA. called for the replacement of the long-
running federal Constpjction Grants program with an innovative State Revolving Fund (SRF) pro-
gram. Under the SRF program, each state (and Puerto Rico) created revolving foan funds to provide
independent and permanent sources of low-cost financing for a range of environmental infrastruc-
ture projects. Funds tjestablish SRF programs are provided through federal government grants (83
percent of total capitalization) and state matching funds (17  percent of total capitalization).

Currently, all fifty state!'and Puerto Rico are operating successful SRF programs. ^Capitalization began
in 1988 and now totalfmore than $16 billion. As payments are made on loans, funds are recycled to
fund additional water protection projects. If capitalized as planned, the SRF will be: available to play a.
key role in funding water pollution control infrastructure far into the future.    ;
                                                SRF Continues a Critical Funding Role

                                                Since 1972, the Nation has invested wisely in
                                                water pollution control infrastructure. Today, the
                                                U.S. enjoys what is probably the most advanced
                                                network of  sewage treatment  facilities in the
                                                world.  Since 1972, the investment  of federal
                                                funds in this vast network has  totaled over $66
                                                billion.  Many more dollars have also  been con-
                                                tributed by local and state governments.

                                                The Construction Grants program and, now, the
                                                SRF program have driven the  extension of the
                                                public health and environmental protection ben-
                                                efits associated with modern sewage treatment to
                                                more and more of the population.
     Data included in this report are from a wide variety of sources, including EPA's 1992 Needs Survey, the 1992 National
     Water Quality Inventory, the 1994 Annual SRF Survey (Ohio Water Development Authority), and the 1990
     National Shellfish Register (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).           .

                                              4^  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

-------
 Our  Investment in Environmental Infrastructure
 Has  Paid  Off
          1972, the number of peo|
 facilities has nearly doubled.  In 1!
 was served by adequate facilities.
 over 62 percent of the population.
 ering that during this time both the!
 pollution flowing through our sewerS
 e served by modern sewage, treatment
g,,,qnly 42 percent.of the population.
^1992,; that number had increased to,
 ii|^c.hievement is, impressive consid-
Jatipn's population and the volume of
gtems increased by nearly 30 percent.

                                         Although the amount of sewage flowing to the Nation's
                                         wastewater facilities increased dramatically during this peri-
                                         od, pollutant loads discharged by municipal sewage treat-
                                         ment systems actually declined by 2.4 million tons per day
                                         or 36 percent to the rate of 4.3 million tons per day.
As a direct result of the Clean Water Act and the funding available
through the Construction Grants and SRF programs, the quality of lakes,
rivers, and other water bodies improved dramatically from 1972 to 1992.
Although there  are significant methodological differences between the
assessments conducted in 1972 and 1992, they do indicate a significant
magnitude of progress.

-------
The SRP  Is Flexible  and Offers  Many  Benefits
         of the most compelling benefits of the SRF program is that it provides communities with a per-
  manent and independent source of funding for environmental infrastructure projects. Repayments from
        low-interest loans made from initial federal and state capitalization funds can be1 recycled for future
             loans. If these state programs are managed successfully, the funding cycle will continue indef-
                initely.

                    The SRF Program Offers States A High Degree of Flexibility

                     In adopting the SRF program, Congress gave the states greater flexibility to struc-
                     ture their SRFs to best meet their needs. States can use capitalization funds for a
                     variety of financial assistance options and each option can be customized to match
                    specific state needs.  Assistance options available .include:
                           m
Low interest loans for communities              '
Refinancing, purchasing, or guaranteeing local debt to lower the cost
of borrowing for communities
Purchasing bond insurance for local debt to increase bond ratings for
communities
Use of capitalization funds to  leverage  the SRF (i.e., issue bonds using
capitalization funds as security) and, as a result, providfe up to three times
as much funding for projects
                                    SRF Loan Program Features:
                                 |_  —  Interest Rate: _0%_to Market rate 	_	_	_	_   ,
                                 -  —  Repayment Period: tip to 20 years
                                 ••  —  Adjustable-rate loans, stepped payments, balloon payments
                                 I"      allowed a,t state discretion	
                                 ^  —  Loans coyer 100% of eligible costs   .  .     .  ,  _     __   ^
                                 f  —  Repayment begins one-year after project,start-up, (poten-
                                 [      tially resulting in additional savings to the community)     \
                                 3U  —  Loans available for all treatment alternatives
                                    —  Loans can cover excess capacity, collection
                                        systems, advanced treatment solutions
   The SRF Program Offers Major Funding Potential

   The SRF program is clearly a powerful funding instrument that is playing a major role in addressing the
   billions of dollars needed to fund much-needed environmental infrastructure projects. Because of the
   revolving nature of the SRF program, it can provide about four times the level of funding over a twenty-
   year period as compared to a traditional one-time grant (see graph above and to the left). This is the case
   because, unlike grants that are available only once, SRF loan repayments provide a continuing source of
   low-cost funding.                                                         ;
                                                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

-------
Approximate
F savings with SRF
it* "* twenty-year loan
•Typical municipal borrowing
rate in commercial market
Average SRF rate
Lowest SRF rate
7.5 % _
k
3.0 %
0.0 %
30%
50%
 The SRF Program Provides Significant Savings to Communities
 The most significant advantage of the SRF program is the dramatic savings a community can realize by financing projects with
 SRF loans. Because of the program's low interest rates, the SRF program is contributing significantly toward making needed
 environmental infrastructure projects more affordable. The chart below shows that a typical SRF loan will save a community
 approximately 30 percent in total project costs as   p_                                ,
 compared to financing the same project on  the   f^  SRF Loan Savings          i
 commercial market. The SRF program allows states
 flexibility to adjust interest rates to meet the needs
 of small and disadvantaged communities, therefore,
 the savings may be as much as a 50 percent reduc-
 tion in total project costs with a no-interest SRF
 loan. Because of the low interest rates provided by -
 the SRF program, communities are saving billions
 of dollars.

 The SRF Program Provides Economic Benefits to Communities

 Aside from the monetary savings available through the SRF, there are many other benefits associated with investments in envi-
 ronmental infrastructure, including improved recreational and scenic values, protection of public health, conservation of ecol-
 ogy, and stimulation of local economies.

 Investments  in environmental infrastructure directly^ stimulate local economic development. For instance, investments in
 wastewater infrastructure attract commercial and industrial development. Such growth leads to increased jobs and cash flow
 into the local economy, as well as  increased revenues for local governments. In the short term, SRF investments also sup-
 port between 16,000 and 22,000 jobs  for every billion dollars invested in the construction and associated industries.

 Because our lives are centered around our water resources, we have a direct stake in their protection and conservation. Over
 the long term, such investments lead to increased prosperity and a better overall quality of life. Witness the revitalization of
 many major urban areas during the 1970s and  1980s,  including Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Cincinnati,  New York,
 Savannah, New Orleans, Austin, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Chicago, which invested  in environmental
 infrastructure to clean up their waterfronts.
                                                                                     I
 The SRF Program is Efficient

 Because of the flexibility  built into  the program and the streamlined federal requirements, the SRF has accelerated the
 pace of construction of needed environmental  infrastructure projects. Specifically, the average project constructed under
 the previous Construction Grants program took approximately seven years to reach completion. Under the SRF program
 that time has been reduced to under  five years.                                         ;

The SRF program is also a model of efficiency in its relationship to the states. In fact, the SRF is probably the most efficient
program of its kind in the federal government. The SRF was created to be a state-run program with little federal oversight and
great state flexibility.  In the eight years since its inception, EPA has worked hard to keep to this ideal. For instance, the
Agency's regulations implementing the program contain no significant additional requirements beyond those required in the
authorizing legislation. Additionally, EPA administers this vast program of over $16 billion with just seventy-five positions —
most of them in EPA's ten regional offices — far fewer than any other comparable federal funding program.
s

-------
SRF Program Flexibility Results In innovative State  Solj
The nine states highlighted below illustrate the flexibility and innovations possible with the SRF progra
 Funding for AH Types of Environmental
 Infrastructure Projects

 Besides offering loans for traditional wastewater facili-
 ties, Washington and California led the Nation in
 using the SRF program loans to address agricultural,
 rural, and urban runoff (nonpoint sources). Other
 states including Ohio, Wyoming, and Delaware are
 also funding these kinds of projects.
    Coordinating with Other Federal
    Funding Programs

    Arkansas and other states including New
    Mexico, Ohio, Colorado, and Washington
    coordinate SRF assistance with other federal
    programs (e.g., Rural Development
    Administration loans/grants) to maximize ben-
    efits for communities.
    Accelerating Use of Funds
    Alabama and Kansas have found ways to
    increase the pace of their programs and, as a result,
    the pace of facility construction. Other states
    include New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey,
    Arkansas, Texas, Florida, Minnesota, South
    Dakota, Connecticut, Michigan, Virginia and
    Qeorgia.
Designing SRF Financing to
Minimize Borrowing Costs

Texas,  Minnesota, and New York have
designed very strong SRF programs and have
been recognized by the financial markets
with AAA bond ratings.
                                                                        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

-------
the states are tailoring their programs along these lines.
       Integrating with the Watershed Approach

       Ohio is leading the way in integrating the SRF program
       with watershed-based plans to assure funding is provided
       for high-priority projects. Many other states are moving in
       this direction.
                                                                 CT
                                                                           Combining SRF with Other State Financing
                                                                           Programs

                                                                           Connecticut has its own state environmental infrastruc-
                                                                           ture financing program which operates in concert with its
                                                                           SRF program to maximize benefits to communities. Other
                                                                           states including New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
                                                                           and Maine have similar programs.
                                                                     Increasing Funding with Innovative Financial
                                                                     "Leveraging" of the SRF

                                                                     New York's leveraging approach uses federal capitalization
                                                                     funds as security for bonds to provide a high level of funding
                                                                     ($2 billion for loans). Other states with effective leveraging
                                                                     programs include Minnesota, Kansas, Texas, Arkansas,
                                                                     Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland,
                                                                     Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado.
                                                               Targeting Assistance to Small/Disadvantaged
                                                               Communities

                                                               Virginia has done much to ensure that the low cost bene-
                                                               fits of the SRF program reach small and disadvantaged
                                                               communities. Other states include Ohio, Kentucky,
                                                               Arkansas, Alaska, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana,
                                                               Minnesota, West Virginia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, South
                                                               Dakota and Utah.
                                     Adjusting the SRF to Match the Financial
                                     Conditions of Communities

                                     Tennessee has developed a very sophisticated program
                                     to tailor interest rates and repayment periods to the eco-
                                     nomic condition of each community. Maryland,
                                     Montana, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, and others
                                     also operate their programs similarly.

-------
                  The  SRF  Program Finances A Vast Array
                  of Environmental Infrastructure Projects

                  TOG Construction Grants program (1972-1990) was devoted primarily to building wastewater systems.
                  The SRF program takes a broader approach. In addition to traditional municipal wastewater, the SRF can
                  finance a broad array of environmental projects to address agricultural, rural, and urban runoff, contami-
                  nated urban stormwater, combined sewer overflows, and even estuary management projects.
Pftoto. Tom Slack/Tim Stacks Associates
Photo: Tom Stack/Tom Stack & Associates
                                            Municipal Wastewater
                                            Of course, the SRF funds the con-
                                            struction of traditional municipal
                                            wastewater treatment systems. Not
                                            surprisingly, since its inception, the
                                            majority of SRF funds have, in fact,
                                            been devoted to  these  very impor-
                                            tant projects.
                                            Combined Sewer
                                            Overflows and Stormwater

                                            Besides traditional wastewater pro-
                                            jects, the SRF program makes loans
                                            to correct flows of raw sewage from
                                            "combined sewer overflows" (CSOs)
                                            and to address the  effects of contam-
                                            inated  urban stormwater.   Since
                                            1988, the SRFs have made approxi-
                                            mately  150 loans worth $1.0 billion
                                            to correct these serious problems.
                                | Combined Sewer Overflows    J
                                tjn.many older cities, sanitary and .•
                                testorm sewers . are combined.
                                j? Periods of high rain often cause
                                |g-"overflows."  Raw sewage over-
                                ptri     lit.           i
                                ferflpws its normal route  to the
                                m"            4     i     ' j  .  •*
                                lg-sewage treatment  plant and is
                                ^carried directly  to  rivers, lakes ,
                                n 'and coastal areas.             ,;

                                | Stormwater                  ;
                                jpAs stormwater  runs off city ;
                                |.L-streets, lawns, and  construction ;
                                fesites it picks up many pollutants .:
                                p^"r  L	      '  --     	  ^
                                tand may result  in  very serious ;;
                                fcwater quality impacts.  In fact,  :
                                gjEEA's"''1#?2;^Water"''' Quality"''1
                                •g=f~"-	 *  - • • -T;	; ••••. "• •--   ' «
                                ipjnyentpry cites urban runoff and 4
                                EL,.,-.  „..', . .- ,  .,   	5-     , , ^,. - _ —  . ,., 5t(
                                jUStorm sewejs as; the third leading 5
                                k,cause ,pf .impairments  to rivers,
                                *s^^--'-T ,,:„", ,',"•	   ,  ,,-  ... _	- ,,jj
                                  P' ikes, and estuaries.
                                   •:*'•>/!«..	•«-(»..•«'!'•  ;	••-• -^ ',',,;,':-.!,,-'« ,^
Pftoto; John CcncatoslfTom Stack & Associates
Agriculture and Urban Runoff              ;

The SRFs have also made approximately 100 loans worth $100 million to
address contaminated runoff from agricultural and urban land (known in
the CWA as "nonpoint sources").  Runoff from agricultural lands is the
most significant problem affecting our Nation's water resources today. The
SRF can fund projects that address pollution from a wide variety of diffuse
sources, including agriculture, silviculture, and abandoned mines. The SRF
program is also available to fund estuary management projects. Because of
the vast flexibility inherent in the SRF program, the program is well-suit-
ed to accommodate the watershed approach. The watershed approach is
EPA's new model for program implementation and is based on the premise
of addressing the most serious problems first.
10
                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

-------
 Small  and  Disadvantaged  Communities
 and  the  SRF

 IVIclflaCJGrS of sj|||lLandJdisadvantaged communities confront a variety of challenges when plan-
 ning water pollution comrlgl projects. One major challenge is securing funding for environmental projects
 at a time when demangs from other programs and other community services — such as education and
 police protection — areTHcreasing.

 In small communities, p%r capita income is generally lower than in major metropolitan areas. Costs are also
 typically higher on a pej[person basis for wastewater and other environmental facilities. Tims, many small
 communities have difficulty gaining access to long-term credit.

 The SRF program is gaipng popularity as an important source of funding for
 small and disadvantageojcommunities. In a recent state-sponsored survey:

     •   40 states reported about 650 small community SRF  loans
          (population^,000 or less) —. that's over 25 percent of the
          total numbfr of SRF loans in the country

     •   21 states reported a total of 341 loans for disadvantaged com-
          munities or^about 14 percent of the total number of loans
                                                                                   Photo: Byron Austin/Tom Stack & Associates
 Small and  disadvantaged communities benefit from the SRF program for several reasons. First, many states
 offer very low interest rates on loans to small and disadvantaged communities—providing the boost needed to
 get projects started. For example, the SRF can make a 0 percent  loan to a community for 20 years — saving
 the community 50 percent of total project cost over a similar commercial loan at 7.5 percent. Other SRF pro-
 gram benefits important to small and disadvantaged communities include the following:

     H   Loans may fund appropriate or alternative technology approaches (i.e., decentralized, low-
          tech solutions)

     •   Loans may fund collection systems, reserve capacity, and projects designed to support eco-
          nomic development

     IS   The program can also provide customized technical assistance to small and disadvantaged
          communities
                                           It is important that small communities identify all
                                           options that are available for financing wastewater pro-
                                           jects;  SRF loans can be combined with other federal
                                           and state funding assistance.  By  combining funding
                                           sources,  such as grants from the Rural Development
                                           Administration, communities can make their projects
                                           even more affordable.
Photo: Theo Singelis
                                                                                                          11

-------
                 Current  investment in the  SRF
                         just eight years of investment by the federal government and the states, over $16 billion is cur-
                 rently available for loans for environmental infrastructure projects.

                                             SRF Investment ($ billion)
                                             Federal SRF Investment (FY88-FY95)           ;   $ .11.1
                                             Required State Match                          $  2.0
                                             Proceeds from Leveraging (bond proceeds, etc.)       $  5.2
                                             Bond Reserve Funds                            ($  2.3)
                                             Amount Available for Loans                  '   $ 16.0
Photo: Bab Wmsett/Tom Stack & Associates
                 Future investment in  the  SRF

                 WflllQ the Nation has made tremendous progress in protecting our water resources since the early
                 1970s, there is still much to do to clean up and protect our valuable water resources. For instance, EPA's
                                                             1992 National Water Quality Inventory showed
                                                             that roughly 38 percent of the assessed river
                                                             miles, 44 percent of assessed lake acres, and 32
                                                             percent of assessed estuary square miles were
                                                             impaired. In addition, 37 percent of the Nation's
                                                             shellfish beds are restricted, limited or closed,
                                                             indicating significant remaining coastal pollu-
                                                             tion problems. A vast majority of this pollution
                                                             comes from sources that can be addressed by pro-
                                                             jects funded by SRF loans (see table to left).
12
                                                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

-------
                                                                                                                             1
EPA publishes the biennial Needs Survey to document, in financial terms, the needs for various types of
environmental infrastructure projects. The 1992 Needs Survey contains over $137 billion in needs over
twenty years for projects ranging from traditional                     ..,...;,_.,...,,..
wastewater treatment to agricultural and urban   **-                    ;
                                                JM*              ' '••  •••.••:'-—	 .       x
nonpoint sources.  Addressing needs of this mag-   (L^,J9?2 Funding Needs Survey {$ Billions)
nitude will require communities to tap into all   |g^--:-r'- .  ,       ' ;      :  .  V  '••  ""f-"	•'•• >•    ''  -
available financing sources.  The  SRF  program   IK ^Traditional Facilities           |
will be an important and significant part of com-   j?frr Combined Sewers & Stormwate)1
munity funding solutions.  (Needs Survey esti-   |f~~ Agriculture/Silviculture
mates are for projects which are needed today and
include reserve capacity for the next 20 years.)
/Other
, Total,
 $  85.8.
'.$  41.3
 $   8.8
.'$   1.2
 $137.1
Because the SRF program is well established and recognized as the most efficient method, of financing
environmental infrastructure projects, the Administration has proposed a plan that would continue capi-
                                              talization of the SRF program through the year 2004
                                              (see chart to left).
                                              Continued investment in the SRF program as indicat-
                                              ed, will establish the 51 SRF programs as permanent
                                              and independent sources of low-cost financing  for
                                              important environmental  infrastructure  projects.
                                              Further, this level of capitalization will allow the SRFs
                                              to issue more than $2.0 billion in. loans annually  for
                                              the foreseeable future (see chart below).
                                                                       Photo: Theo SingeKs


                                                                                                                13

-------
                Benefits of  Future  Investment
                in the SRF program

                                         It is evident, even considering the impressive progress we have made over
                                         the last twenty years, that there is still much to do to protect the Nation's
                                         water resources. Continued investment in the SRF program can further this
                                         progress in many ways. As was mentioned earlier, investment in a revolving
                                         fund program like the SRF has the distinct advantage of providing four times
                                         more environmental protection than traditional one-time grants.

                                         If the federal and state governments continue to invest ir; the SRF program,
                                         we can expect our environmental conditions to continue to improve.  In
                                         fact, if we continue to invest in the SRF program (as stated on the previous
                                         page) we can expect that sewage treatment  plants  will  continue to  be
                                         upgraded and improved as indicated in the chart to the left.
                Similarly, we can expect that more and more of the
                population will be served by modern and efficient
                sewage treatment (see chart to the right).

                We can also expect that more and more pollutants will
                be removed from our waterways (see chart below).

                If we continue to invest in the SRF program as outlined
                earlier in this report, we can expect the overall condi-
                tion of water resources to continue to improve hand-in-
                hand with the continued economic development asso-
                ciated with such investments in environmental infra-
                Structure.
                                          To continue progress toward the goal of protecting "the chemical, physical,
                                          and biological integrity" of the Nation's water resources as established in
                                          the Clean Water Act, we will need to continue to invest in our most
                                          effective programs such as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. We
                                          will also need to ensure  our efforts are directed, through sound science
                                          and good management, toward solving the most significant problems in
                                          those areas that are most in need of protection. The SRF program is wor-
                                          thy of our continued focus and investment.
14
                                                                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water

-------
State  Revolving
State  Contacts
Fund
ALABAMA
Department of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 301463
Montgomery, AL 36130-1463

ALASKA
Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Facilities Construction and Operation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801 -1795

ARIZONA
Arizona Wastewater Management Authority
3033 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85012

ARKANSAS
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology
Construction Assistance Division
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913

CALIFORNIA
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. BOX944214
Sacramento, CA 94244

COLORADO
Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive, South
Denver, CO 80222-1530

CONNECTICUT
Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Water Management
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127

DELAWARE
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control
Division of Water Resources
P.O. Box 1401
89 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903

FLORIDA
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blair Stone Road
Twin Towers Office Building
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

GEORGIA
Department of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Division
Suite 1058, East Tower
Butler Street
Atlanta, GA 30334

HAWAII
Department of Health
Environmental Management Division
919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 309
Honolulu, HI 96814

IDAHO
Department of Health and Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
1410 North Hilton, Statehouse Mail
Boise, ID 83720-9000

ILLINOIS
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Pollution Control
P.O.  Box 19276
Springfield, IL 62706-9276

INDIANA
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Facilities Development Branch
100 North Senate Avenue
P.O.  Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015

IOWA
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Henry A. Wallace Building
500 East Grand
DesMoines, IA 50319

KANSAS
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
J Street and 2 North
Building 283
Topeka, KS 66620-0110

KENTUCKY
Kentucky Infrastructure Authority
Finance and Administration Cabinet
Capital Annex, Room 261
Frankfort, KY 40601
ing Administration
"'
    LOUISIANA
    Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
    P.O. Box 8221 5
    Baton Rouge, LA 70884-221 5

    MAINE
    Maine Municipal Bond Baj
    45 University Drive
    P.O. Box 2268
    Augusta, ME 04338

    MARYLAND
    Maryland Water Quality F
    2500 Broening Highway
    Baltimore, MD 21 224

    MASSACHUSETTS
    Massachusetts Water  Pollution Abatement Trust
    One Ashburton Place, 12tj}Fjoor __
    Boston, MA 021 08      fer

    MICHIGAN            -l^""
    Michigan Department of Neural Resources
   , Municipal Facilities Section^
    Community Assistance Division
    P.O. Box 30273        fe-;
    Lansing, Ml 48909      t  _

    MINNESOTA          L^
    Minnesota Public Facilities_Au,tborrty
    Department of Trade and Economic Development
    500 Metro Square      „.— '-
    121 7th Place East      9,-
    St. Paul, MN 551 01 -2146 ~

    MISSISSIPPI
    Commission on Environmental Quality
    P.O. Box 2030S        r
    Jackson, MS 39209     f^_

    MISSOURI
    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
    P.O. Box 176          S"
    JsKerson CHy, MO 65102~:"'~ ::::•'  .-;•'•  ..... ;

    MONTANA            C
    Montana Department of Health and
    Environmental Sciences r.~" '   - ,
    Cogswell Building      ;;:-"
    Helena, MT 59620
    NEBRASKA
    Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
    1200 N Street, The Atrium, Suite 400
    P.O. Box 98922        "„
    Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 ~.      "'..''

    NEVADA
    Nevada Division of Environmental Protection
    333 West Nye Lane
    Capital Complex
    Carson City, NV 89710

    NEW HAMPSHIRE
    New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
    Wastewater Engineering Bureau
    6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95
    Concord, NH 03301

    NEW JERSEY
    Department of Environmental Protection
    Municipal Wastewater Assistance
    1333 Brunswick Ave.
    CN-425
    Trenton, NJ 08625

    NEW MEXICO
    New Mexico Costruction Programs Bureau
    Environmental Improvement Division
    1190 St. Francis Drive, Room 2210
    Santa Fe, NM 87502

    NEW YORK
    Environmental Facilities Corporation
    50 Wolf Road
    Albany,  NY 12233                      ,

    NORTH CAROLINA
    Department of Natural Resources and Community
    Development
    P.O. Box 27687
    512 North Salisbury Street
    Raleigh, NC 27611

    NORTH DAKOTA
    North Dakota Department of Health and Consolidated
    Laboratories
    Environmental Health Section
    P.O. Box 5520
    Bismarck, ND 58505-5520
 OHIO
 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
 Division of Environmental and Financial Assistance
 P.O. Box 163669
 1800~Water Mark Drive              -   —     —
 Columbus, OH 43266-1049

 OKUHOMA *~
 Oklahoma Water Resources Board
 600 North Harvey Avenue
 PO Box 150
 Oklaripma City, OK 73101-0150

 ORECiON
 Department of Environmental Quality
 811 SW  Sixth Avenue
 Portland, OR 97204-1390

 PENNSYLVANIA
 Pennsiylvahia Infrastructure Investment Authority
 Keystone Building, 4th Floor
 22 South 3rd Street
 Harrisburg, PA 17101

 PUERTO RICO
 Envirp.nmental Quality Board
 Water, Quality Area
 P.O. Box 11488
 Santurce, PR 00910

 RHODE ISLAND
 Division of Water Resources
 Department of Environmental Management
 235 Promenade Street
 Providence, Rl 02908

 SOUTH CAROLINA
 Department of Health and Environmental Control
 2600 Bull Street
 Columbia, SC 29201

 SOUTH DAKOTA
 SoutrjJDakota Department of Environment and Natural
. Resources	
 Joe Fos's Building,  523 East Capitol
 Pierre( SD 57501-3181

 TENNESSEE
 Department of Health and Environment
 L & C "Tower
 401 Church Street, 21st Floor
 Nashville, TN 37243-1533

 TEXAS  _
 Texas Water Development Board
 Engineering  Division
 P.O. Box 13231 - Capitol Station
 Austiri.TX 78711-3231

 UTAH
 Utah Department of Environmental Quality
 288 North 1460 West
 P.O. Elox 14480
 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870

 VERMONT
 Agency of Natural Resources
 Department of Environmental Conservation
 Public Facilities Division
 One Cannery Building
 103 South Main Street
 Waterbury, VT 05676

 VIRGINIA
 Virginja State Water Control Board
 Department of Environmental Quality
 629 East Main Street
 Richmond, VA 23219

 WASHINGTON
 Department of Ecology
 P.O. Box 47600
 Olympia, WA 98504-7600

 WEST VIRGINIA
 Construction Assistance Branch
 Division of Environmental Protection
 Water Resources Section
 617 Broad Street
 Charleston, WV 25301

 WISCONSIN
 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
 Clean Water Fund  Loan Section
 P.O. Box 7921
 101 South Webster Street
 Madison, Wl 53707-7921

 WYOMING
 Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
 Herschler Building
 122 West 25th Street
 Cheyenne, WY 82002-0600

-------
 ^^^^jp'^^^^^^/^JS^i.f^'H^r^^^lnSffi^Sli^^^
!iiii.i!l! IV"1' -'!! liF1' \"c°l  'S.r ' •' "g I  w MM riij'?'''^..!^'   ? Wiirflw Iffii raJJIfg?






-------